Post election prediction

[wes4dbt]

Like you? Completely avoiding the fact that you said I said something which I didn't actually say:-




Lets talk about that.

Sure, I said world instead on universe. A mistake on my part. What that difference makes, I have no idea. The fact that either claim is pure lunacy sort of makes it irrelevant.

So now, answer the question??? Or more childish games. Or more dancing. I'm fine with either one. I'm bored tonight.

[Niya]

Sure, I said world instead on universe. A mistake on my part.

Now was that so hard to acknowledge?

What that difference makes, I have no idea.

It makes a world of difference, no pun intended. It changes the underlying nature of my statement from obvious hyperbole to something more ambiguous, as it is entirely within the realm of possibility for a single man to destroy the world, eg, a nuclear strike.

As for your question, you're going to have to be more specific. Is what true? Is it true what I said or is it true that I didn't say what you said I said? What were you referring to when you asked this question?

[Niya]

So now, answer the question??? Or more childish games. Or more dancing. I'm fine with either one. I'm bored tonight.

It's been an hour. You tapped out already? I was just getting started

[wes4dbt]

It changes the underlying nature of my statement from obvious hyperbole

So, it wasn't the truth.

Nice to see you finally admit it.

As for it being obvious, I'm never quite sure what's real in your mind. I've seen you make many other obviously false claims that you believe are real. Glad this wasn't another.

[sapator]

Nice.
Talking about age and jumping up and down on Trump while when I said the same on Biden everybody where whistling in the rain (that I think is an exact reply I wrote before, answering to exact same accusation).
Does Trump has dementia? Just because you don't like what he says does not mean old age blaming. Or people over 70 should also stop answering here because they are old. Hmm?

[Niya]

So, it wasn't the truth.

You just taught me something new. I just realized that you guys have no idea how to interpret figurative language. You guys struggle with similes, metaphors, hyperbole, litotes, oxymorons etc. I tend to use a lot of these in my non-technical posts. One could make the argument that I use them poorly and that might certainly be true, but sapator seems to understand me perfectly and English isn't even his first language. I'm also pretty confident that dil understands me as well.

When I said Covid wasn't real, Shaggy took it quite literally but what I actually used here was a combination of hyperbole and something called a metonymy. The basic idea is a metonymy is that a word is used as a stand in for another idea. Eg. The crown has failed to quell the rebellion. In this case the crown means the King, not the physical crown itself.

Earlier in this thread, I told Tyson something along the lines of half the country voted for Trump, so it might be a good idea to listen to what they have to say. I employed hyperbole or perhaps it was synecdoche, I'm not sure. In either case, it completely went over his head. The point was that the number of people who voted for him is far too significant to be casually dismissed. He completely missed that and went off on some irrelevant tangent about the number not being half the people.

I told you that 95% of this thread is people inventing narratives about how Trump will destroy the universe, an obvious hyperbole if ever there was such a thing. Yet, you completely missed the point, which was that a noticeable amount of the content in this are complaints about Trump, many of which are the most pessimistic predictions about what his actions might lead to. Yet, all you could focus on is if it is actually 95% of the posts.

Fear not though. It's 2025. From now on, every non-technical post I make, I will pass it through an LLM and ask it to remove all literary devices like metaphors and hyperbole. I will ask it to translate my posts into the dry and colourless language of academics which may prove to be more suitable for precise communication across cultural boundaries.

[Niya]

I just tested it on my statement. I fed this to ChatGPT:-

Such irony, saying this in a thread where 95% of its content are inventive narratives about how Trump is going to destroy the universe.

And it gave me this:-

It is notable that this remark is made within a discussion thread that contains a significant amount of highly speculative and implausible commentary about Donald Trump, much of which lacks evidentiary support and approaches the irrational.

God, I love LLMS

[dilettante]

Why isn't the media talking about how deranged Trump is? He's almost the same age, he's taking tests that you only take if you are showing signs of mental deterioration, and his interviews tend to go into insanity. I can understand why Fox is covering for him, but nobody else seems to be pointing out his erratic statements. It may just be that he's been erratic for so long that everybody expects it, but his inability to even come up with BS answers to softball questions suggests he's barely sticking to his own fantasy.

There is a term for this: gaslighting.

[sapator]

sapator seems to understand me perfectly and English isn't even his first language

You should think but when you spout your impressive language deviation it's actually you that is speaking my language.

metonymy: Greek Metonimia, meta + onimi = transfer -name , transfer a name (meaning)
metaphors: Greek Metafora meta (change place move) fero (bring something)
hyperbole: Greek Ipervoli: iper (you know this, hyper) voli (put something)so put something upper than it is, an exaggeration)
Trump: Honest billionaire

[FunkyDexter]

It's a terrible disease. Considering its advanced state it isn't possible that it just came out of the blue as complicit press would have us believe. Add the obvious mental fog and other behavioral issues and the entire term of office smacks of elder abuse.

It calls every action taken during that term into question. Fours years under the reign of a Deep State armed with autopen forgeries.

I agree with part of this. I do agree that Biden should have retired much earlier, that there was probably some pressure on him to keep going and/or support for his own inflated assessment of his abilities instead of challenging that assessment and that the Left Wing media were probably somewhat guilty of reporting the narrative that they wanted to see rather than the what they were seeing.

I disagree on two main points, 1. This is not restricted to the Left and 2. I don't need to go looking for some deep state conspiracy to explain it - simple human affirmation bias is enough.

Your system has become so polarised and high stakes that people are kept in place waaaay beyond the point at which it would be better for them to step down. I believe we saw this with Mitch McConnel, you previously quoted me a lady Dem who's name I now can't remember but it was valid, we've seen it of a couple of Dem senators who've recently died in office and I think we're now seeing it in Trump if you're objective about it (seriously, watch any of his rambling tangents, it's like watching Grandpa Simpson - it's increasingly hard to avoid that the US is currently being run by Stephen Miller). Hell, it's widely recognised that Raegan was senile by the end so this is a half century old problem.

Partly this is benign but misguided (it feels cruel to tell my Dad that he should stop driving before he kills someone - we just don't like telling old people they're past it) and partly it's coercive (the stakes are too high to let someone step down when it could be the difference between a massively polarising bill passing or not so pressure is applied to keep going).

I don't know how we remove that toxicity from your system but I think the world would be a much better place if we did. There either needs to be a more robust way of removing people from office, a way of reducing the high stakes or a way of encouraging younger candidates into your system and promoting them through it.

[dilettante]

You'd have to be watching some odd video cuts and pastes to arrive at such conclusions. Follow any uncut video of five to over 20 minutes long, none of those claimed irregularities are evident.

It's desperate grasping.

It's no "conspiracy theory" that a deep state of unelected people held the power and made the decisions under Biden. He was unfit and never should have held office.

The left's embrace and defense and participation in criminality and terrorism tells people all they need to know. It's an epidemic of mental illness.

Current polling is historic. It shows that a majority of likely voters now say that the country is on the right track. This is a first-in-decades event.

[dilettante]

Hilarious!

A "PR Politburo" to "rebrand" a dying Party:

21 Unexpected Heavy Hitters for a Democratic Shadow Cabinet
https://www.politico.com/news/magazi...brand-00353690

Those proposals are alternates to the actual Politburo being assembled for a theoretical next term, assuming they ever get one again.

[PlausiblyDamp]

You'd have to be watching some odd video cuts and pastes to arrive at such conclusions. Follow any uncut video of five to over 20 minutes long, none of those claimed irregularities are evident.

So all caps rants on Truth social such as this one https://am14.mediaite.com/med/cnt/up...t-11-56-54.jpg which is a day I believe is about remembering the sacrifices your soldiers made is a sign of a well balanced individual?

The left's embrace and defense and participation in criminality and terrorism tells people all they need to know. It's an epidemic of mental illness.

Unlike the republicans support for a 34 times convicted fraudster, and a convicted sex offender - obviously you believe some crimes are acceptable. Also don't forget he blindly pardoned everyone convicted in the Jan 6th riots (and the election wasn't stolen, so please no youtube videos or anti MSM claims), he pardoned Paul Walczak, Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, Roger Stone, Charles Kushner, Steve Bannon, and a long list of other people convicted of crimes. So supporting the Republicans when they are criminals is good, democrats bad? Is that right?

Current polling is historic. It shows that a majority of likely voters now say that the country is on the right track. This is a first-in-decades event.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/656114/...ecord-low.aspx
https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/latest-us-opinion-polls
https://ballotpedia.org/Ballotpedia%...country_rating
https://www.realclearpolling.com/pol...ion-of-country
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics...2024-election/

none of those would indicate this "historic" polling, other than it does compare with previous poor polls.

[dilettante]

Quite a barrage of BS there. History will probably forget the Dark Days of Derangement when so many minds were held in thrall by an insane ideology.

[PlausiblyDamp]

So are you saying that Trump isn't a 34 time convicted fraudster? Is that BS? Are you claiming it is BS that he is a convicted sex offender?

Are you claiming he didn't pardon all of those people, including the Jan 6 rioters? Are you still clinging to the baseless claim the election was stolen?

Are you claiming all of those poll links are lies?

There are certainly some people held in thrall by a lying fraudster, who will support anything he does or says.

But just claiming BS when presented with facts just proves your inability to criticise Trump, or even see what he actually is.

[FunkyDexter]

You'd have to be watching some odd video cuts and pastes to arrive at such conclusions.

When you're willing to excuse rambling as "the weave" you're deep in Trump Derangement Syndrome. Wise Monkey it if you want to but it doesn't change what we see.

It's no "conspiracy theory" that a deep state of unelected people held the power and made the decisions under Biden.

It is. Any time you're referencing the "Deep State" you're swimming in the same waters as the Illuminati and Lizard People.

Quite a barrage of BS there

Point to a specific example. What did PD post that was incorrect?

[sapator]

What does Hard as a "black" rock, RothChrist demonchild, my good "feller" and such have to do with Lizard people....Oh wait!
So there is no deep state and all the decisions are held by Biden. Next one, Paladin outfit....
Btw how is your PM? Doing fine? Did UK people voted for him?

[FunkyDexter]

So there is no deep state

No. There's a bureaucracy, certainly. But the "Deep State" is a meaningless phrase designed to evoke paranoia around any phenomenon you find threatening. It's like "Elders of Zion", the "Illuminati", "Globalists" or "They". It's a meaningless nominative that remains entirely undefined and of whom nobody identifies a member.

Btw how is your PM? Doing fine? Did UK people voted for him?

Yes, they did. He's been pretty disappointing though.

[sapator]

There is nothing paranoid about deep state unless you try to make it paranoid to dismantle it. That won't work here tho.

Yes, it slipped I should have included a "really" voted .


Hard as a Black rock
And it's harder than a Black rock

[wes4dbt]

Current polling is historic.

You must have said this(or something similar like Trumps polls are soring) 5 or 10 times since Trump took office. When challenged on that claim you never provide any supporting polls. Why???

Quite a barrage of BS there. History will probably forget the Dark Days of Derangement when so many minds were held in thrall by an insane ideology.

I see you've been asked to provide an example of what was "BS" in PD post. Again, when challenged, nothing.

I understand that it's easy to make claims and it's more work to provide supporting information. But unless your willing to do that, what's the actual purpose of your posts???

[Niya]

No. There's a bureaucracy, certainly. But the "Deep State" is a meaningless phrase designed to evoke paranoia around any phenomenon you find threatening. It's like "Elders of Zion", the "Illuminati", "Globalists" or "They". It's a meaningless nominative that remains entirely undefined and of whom nobody identifies a member.

Many people misunderstand terms like "they," "the deep state," or "the elites," often imagining them as referring to a clandestine cabal of malevolent actors orchestrating global events with unified intent. However, the reality is more nuanced. These labels typically refer to a network of influential individuals whose interests happen to align due to shared socio-economic status, institutional positions, or ideological commitments. As a result, they often act in ways that appear coordinated, even in the absence of explicit planning or direct communication. This phenomenon can resemble a conspiracy in its effects, but it arises organically from overlapping incentives and worldviews rather than from a centralized or formally organized effort.

Importantly, many of the individuals whose actions contribute to these perceived “conspiracies”—for lack of a better term—are not hidden or unknown figures. On the contrary, they are often prominent public figures: politicians, business leaders, media executives, and policy influencers whose names and roles are well known. What gives rise to the perception of covert coordination is not their obscurity, but the systemic nature of their actions and the shared frameworks within which they operate.

When people like me or Dil refer to the "deep state" or "they" that is what we're actually talking about.

[Peter Porter]

I just tested it on my statement. I fed this to ChatGPT:-

Such irony, saying this in a thread where 95% of its content are inventive narratives about how Trump is going to destroy the universe.

And it gave me this:-

It is notable that this remark is made within a discussion thread that contains a significant amount of highly speculative and implausible commentary about Donald Trump, much of which lacks evidentiary support and approaches the irrational.

What comments from this thread did you feed ChatGPT?

[Shaggy Hiker]

Many people misunderstand terms like "they," "the deep state," or "the elites," often imagining them as referring to a clandestine cabal of malevolent actors orchestrating global events with unified intent. However, the reality is more nuanced. These labels typically refer to a network of influential individuals whose interests happen to align due to shared socio-economic status, institutional positions, or ideological commitments. As a result, they often act in ways that appear coordinated, even in the absence of explicit planning or direct communication. This phenomenon can resemble a conspiracy in its effects, but it arises organically from overlapping incentives and worldviews rather than from a centralized or formally organized effort.

Importantly, many of the individuals whose actions contribute to these perceived “conspiracies”—for lack of a better term—are not hidden or unknown figures. On the contrary, they are often prominent public figures: politicians, business leaders, media executives, and policy influencers whose names and roles are well known. What gives rise to the perception of covert coordination is not their obscurity, but the systemic nature of their actions and the shared frameworks within which they operate.

When people like me or Dil refer to the "deep state" or "they" that is what we're actually talking about.

That may be what YOU are talking about. I wouldn't go putting words in anybody else's mouth, though.

I've said roughly the same, except that I go further. Even in that definition, there is a group. They may not be working in concert, but there is still a group with at least roughly defined membership. I don't believe that at all. I think the group is FAR larger, if you can even call it a group at that part. I would say that it encompasses more than everybody who works for the government. It encompasses a fair portion of society outside of government, as well. Everybody tugs in whichever direction they choose with whatever force they care to, and are capable of, exert...ing (darn, that sentence has two different endings, depending on how you get there).

After all, to a true believer in the flat Earth idea, everybody who believes the Earth is round is part of the deep state that is acting against them. Some are acting strongly, such as by putting things into orbit, manufacturing globes (if those still exist), or teaching children. Some are acting weakly, such as by just rolling their eyes or wandering away. All are pulling in the wrong direction, as far as the flat-Earther is concerned. They aren't doing nothing, they are actively pulling in the wrong direction.

You could make the same case for less extreme positions. You could make the same case for EVERY widespread belief system, commonly held or not (smaller things, like what you want on your pizza, have a different calculus to them). However, I would say that when Trump or his supporters talk about the deep state, they are not talking about, "a mass of people that may well make up the majority of the country on any given issue." They're almost always talking about the deep state because it frames the battle in a way that is worth fighting. It's not, "you're a minority trying to overthrow the will of the majority", which could be a valid objective, but instead it's "you're the spear tip of a majority trying to overthrow a relatively small minority out to thwart your wishes."

[wes4dbt]

That may be what YOU are talking about. I wouldn't go putting words in anybody else's mouth, though.

I've said roughly the same, except that I go further. Even in that definition, there is a group. They may not be working in concert, but there is still a group with at least roughly defined membership. I don't believe that at all. I think the group is FAR larger, if you can even call it a group at that part. I would say that it encompasses more than everybody who works for the government. It encompasses a fair portion of society outside of government, as well. Everybody tugs in whichever direction they choose with whatever force they care to, and are capable of, exert...ing (darn, that sentence has two different endings, depending on how you get there).

After all, to a true believer in the flat Earth idea, everybody who believes the Earth is round is part of the deep state that is acting against them. Some are acting strongly, such as by putting things into orbit, manufacturing globes (if those still exist), or teaching children. Some are acting weakly, such as by just rolling their eyes or wandering away. All are pulling in the wrong direction, as far as the flat-Earther is concerned. They aren't doing nothing, they are actively pulling in the wrong direction.

You could make the same case for less extreme positions. You could make the same case for EVERY widespread belief system, commonly held or not (smaller things, like what you want on your pizza, have a different calculus to them). However, I would say that when Trump or his supporters talk about the deep state, they are not talking about, "a mass of people that may well make up the majority of the country on any given issue." They're almost always talking about the deep state because it frames the battle in a way that is worth fighting. It's not, "you're a minority trying to overthrow the will of the majority", which could be a valid objective, but instead it's "you're the spear tip of a majority trying to overthrow a relatively small minority out to thwart your wishes."

Nice!!

I enjoyed reading that.

[sapator]

Who will rebuild Ukaine? Frogs.
Who is selling guns to the field? Ferrets
Who put Wokers all over the PM positions? Chicken nugget.
Who is selling oil to Europe? Kangaroos. Greek Kangaroos to be exact.
And let's throw some flat earthers, lizards and Illuminati to ridicule the posts.
I suppose the slap on the brave Micron was done by a cricket with a red sleeve.

P.S. A big group. Good one. Flat earthers , excusing and washing away since the fakevid thread.

[TysonLPrice]

Nice!!

I enjoyed reading that.

I agree...it is nice when adults are in the room.

[dilettante]

The amount of Copium evidenced here must surely be toxic?

This is the poll:




Another clear indicator of reality:

[wes4dbt]

The amount of Copium evidenced here must surely be toxic?

This is the poll:




Another clear indicator of reality:

So your not actually talking about approval rating. It was 50% thought the country is on the right track. Ok

His approval rating is still @46%

I also saw on that Raamussen Reports site that 41% say they are financially worse off since Trump took office.

https://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...nces_are_worse

I noticed also it went from "in recent history" to "Historic".

"In recent history" is a fairly vague term but I'm pretty sure it doesn't mean historic.

[sapator]

Let's put a "moronic" video on what exactly happened with "sleepy" cover up. Remember? 2 years ago? I was called off for that.

[TysonLPrice]

Let's put a "moronic" video on what exactly happened with "sleepy" cover up. Remember? 2 years ago? I was called off for that.

I never look at those but it appears there was a concerted effort to hide his decline. They did it and got caught. They are no better in that respect than the Trump team. They tried to foist a dotard on us. A carnival barker versus someone seriously diminished. What a country.

When you throw so much crap out, and once in a while something reasonable, you should expect people will discount what you say off hand.

[Niya]

That may be what YOU are talking about. I wouldn't go putting words in anybody else's mouth, though.

It’s important to clarify that not everyone who uses terms like “deep state” or “the elites” is referring to the exact same group. However, in practice, these terms tend to point to a recognizable subset of influential individuals, families, and organizations. While the composition may vary slightly depending on who’s speaking, certain names and institutions tend to appear consistently.

For example, when people talk about the “deep state,” they’re often referring to figures such as the Obamas, the Clintons, George Soros, the Bidens, Kamala Harris, Klaus Schwab, Larry Fink, Bill Gates, Mark Cuban, Nancy Pelosi, and Rupert Murdoch. Similarly, organizations like the World Economic Forum (WEF), World Health Organization (WHO), Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, BlackRock, and Vanguard frequently feature in these discussions.

One person might focus on political families like the Clintons and the Obamas, while another may zero in on financial players like George Soros or corporate entities like BlackRock. But regardless of the specifics, the core idea remains: these actors hold considerable influence, and their interests often intersect.

To illustrate the concept of an informal or decentralized form of coordination, consider the following hypothetical example:

Suppose Hillary Clinton becomes President. She has a longstanding connection—personal, academic, or familial—with someone in a defense contractor like Lockheed Martin. Through indirect channels, that individual reaches out to discuss potential contracts. Hillary, using her position, influences the Pentagon to award a lucrative defense contract to Lockheed. In return, she receives some form of compensation—perhaps funneled through intermediaries or shell entities, making it difficult to trace directly.

Later, a geopolitical opportunity arises—say, a conflict with Iraq. Wanting to shape public opinion, Hillary contacts Rupert Murdoch or other media magnates. Through coordinated coverage—sensational reporting, selective narratives, and polarized debates—the media manufactures consensus around the need for intervention. Lockheed Martin benefits from new military contracts, the administration consolidates power, the media enjoys a ratings boost, and everyone involved profits or advances their agenda.

This kind of scenario does not require a formal conspiracy, secret meetings, or shared membership in a covert organization. Rather, it reflects how powerful individuals operating within overlapping spheres of influence can act in ways that are mutually reinforcing—often without explicit coordination. These actors don’t need to conspire in the traditional sense; their incentives, worldviews, and institutional positions naturally align.

It’s important to distinguish this kind of informal power structure from something like the flat-earth theory. The flat-earth hypothesis is demonstrably false and widely debunked by science. In contrast, the idea of informal elite networks—what some call the “deep state”—is not only plausible but supported by a growing number of whistleblowers, former intelligence officers, military personnel, professionals, and insiders who have spoken publicly about systemic dynamics behind the scenes.

You won’t often find these perspectives represented in mainstream outlets like CNN, FOX, The Guardian, or Politico, but that doesn't make them irrelevant. While not every claim made by these voices is necessarily factual or free from bias, much of the testimony and evidence they provide is thought-provoking and worthy of consideration. It offers a lens through which many current events—including the ongoing and arguably disproportionate legal scrutiny faced by Donald Trump—begin to make more sense.

Whether or not one supports Trump, the disparity in accountability raises valid questions. Many of his critics operate within the same circles that tend to escape similar levels of investigation or media scrutiny. The difference isn’t always about guilt or innocence—it’s often about affiliation. Trump is not part of their network. And because of that, he receives no institutional protection.

[Niya]

What comments from this thread did you feed ChatGPT?

Only 3 so far. If you see me post in italics in this thread from now on, it means I wrote my original post in ChatGPT and asked it to remove all the metaphors, hyperboles and other forms of imprecise language. I might revise it a couple times until the words match exactly what I wish to communicate before posting it here.

[sapator]

With the exception, when you see "has a longstanding connection" replace with "is a pawn"

[TysonLPrice]

It’s important to clarify that not everyone who uses terms like “deep state” or “the elites” is referring to the exact same group. However, in practice, these terms tend to point to a recognizable subset of influential individuals, families, and organizations. While the composition may vary slightly depending on who’s speaking, certain names and institutions tend to appear consistently.

For example, when people talk about the “deep state,” they’re often referring to figures such as the Obamas, the Clintons, George Soros, the Bidens, Kamala Harris, Klaus Schwab, Larry Fink, Bill Gates, Mark Cuban, Nancy Pelosi, and Rupert Murdoch. Similarly, organizations like the World Economic Forum (WEF), World Health Organization (WHO), Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, BlackRock, and Vanguard frequently feature in these discussions.

One person might focus on political families like the Clintons and the Obamas, while another may zero in on financial players like George Soros or corporate entities like BlackRock. But regardless of the specifics, the core idea remains: these actors hold considerable influence, and their interests often intersect.

To illustrate the concept of an informal or decentralized form of coordination, consider the following hypothetical example:

Suppose Hillary Clinton becomes President. She has a longstanding connection—personal, academic, or familial—with someone in a defense contractor like Lockheed Martin. Through indirect channels, that individual reaches out to discuss potential contracts. Hillary, using her position, influences the Pentagon to award a lucrative defense contract to Lockheed. In return, she receives some form of compensation—perhaps funneled through intermediaries or shell entities, making it difficult to trace directly.

Later, a geopolitical opportunity arises—say, a conflict with Iraq. Wanting to shape public opinion, Hillary contacts Rupert Murdoch or other media magnates. Through coordinated coverage—sensational reporting, selective narratives, and polarized debates—the media manufactures consensus around the need for intervention. Lockheed Martin benefits from new military contracts, the administration consolidates power, the media enjoys a ratings boost, and everyone involved profits or advances their agenda.

This kind of scenario does not require a formal conspiracy, secret meetings, or shared membership in a covert organization. Rather, it reflects how powerful individuals operating within overlapping spheres of influence can act in ways that are mutually reinforcing—often without explicit coordination. These actors don’t need to conspire in the traditional sense; their incentives, worldviews, and institutional positions naturally align.

It’s important to distinguish this kind of informal power structure from something like the flat-earth theory. The flat-earth hypothesis is demonstrably false and widely debunked by science. In contrast, the idea of informal elite networks—what some call the “deep state”—is not only plausible but supported by a growing number of whistleblowers, former intelligence officers, military personnel, professionals, and insiders who have spoken publicly about systemic dynamics behind the scenes.

You won’t often find these perspectives represented in mainstream outlets like CNN, FOX, The Guardian, or Politico, but that doesn't make them irrelevant. While not every claim made by these voices is necessarily factual or free from bias, much of the testimony and evidence they provide is thought-provoking and worthy of consideration. It offers a lens through which many current events—including the ongoing and arguably disproportionate legal scrutiny faced by Donald Trump—begin to make more sense.

Whether or not one supports Trump, the disparity in accountability raises valid questions. Many of his critics operate within the same circles that tend to escape similar levels of investigation or media scrutiny. The difference isn’t always about guilt or innocence—it’s often about affiliation. Trump is not part of their network. And because of that, he receives no institutional protection.

I have to log on for work and I am pressed for time. I asked ChatGTP to reply

This argument presents a compelling narrative, but there are several critical weaknesses and assumptions that can be addressed. A thoughtful counter would aim to distinguish between legitimate scrutiny of power and the dangers of vague, conspiratorial generalizations.

1. Vagueness and Inconsistency of Terms
Counterpoint:
Terms like “deep state” and “the elites” are inherently vague and inconsistently defined. The list of individuals and organizations mentioned spans different political ideologies, industries, and even countries (e.g., Klaus Schwab vs. Rupert Murdoch, Kamala Harris vs. BlackRock). Without a clear definition, these terms risk becoming catch-alls for any figure the speaker distrusts.

Why it matters:
Lumping together ideologically opposed or disconnected actors undermines the credibility of the argument and blurs the line between meaningful criticism and conspiracy thinking. For instance, Rupert Murdoch and George Soros have vastly different worldviews, yet both are cited as examples of the same supposed network.

2. Correlation ? Coordination
Counterpoint:
The argument suggests that informal networks naturally align interests, leading to coordinated outcomes without explicit collusion. While overlapping incentives are real in politics and business, this doesn't prove centralized intent or control.

Why it matters:
People and institutions acting in self-interest is not the same as conspiring. It’s a fundamental principle of political economy. Claims that coordination is happening—even informally—still require evidence beyond anecdotes or hypothetical scenarios.

3. Hypothetical Scenarios Are Not Evidence
Counterpoint:
The Hillary Clinton–Lockheed Martin–Rupert Murdoch example is entirely speculative. It’s presented as illustrative but risks reinforcing belief in something for which no concrete evidence is supplied.

Why it matters:
While hypotheticals can be useful for exploring possibilities, they shouldn't be confused with proof. In the absence of real examples or whistleblower-confirmed events, such narratives remain storytelling—not substantiation.

4. Misuse of Whistleblower Testimony
Counterpoint:
The claim that "a growing number" of insiders support the deep state thesis lacks citation and specificity. Some former officials have criticized certain government practices, but their testimonies vary widely and are often misrepresented or selectively quoted.

Why it matters:
Whistleblowers like Edward Snowden or Chelsea Manning revealed specific abuses with documented evidence. That’s different from vague claims by anonymous or ideologically motivated individuals. The credibility of whistleblower testimony depends on the transparency of their claims and the evidence they provide.

5. Unequal Treatment of Trump May Have Other Explanations
Counterpoint:
The idea that Trump faces legal scrutiny because he’s outside the network presumes a nefarious motive while ignoring alternative explanations—like his documented conduct, ongoing investigations, and pattern of breaking political and legal norms.

Why it matters:
Criticism or prosecution doesn’t prove persecution. High-profile figures often face intense scrutiny, especially when they have held powerful offices and been involved in controversial decisions. Assuming that legal consequences are only politically motivated can be a form of special pleading.

6. Echo Chamber Critique of Media
Counterpoint:
The dismissal of mainstream media as inherently biased or irrelevant doesn’t prove alternative narratives are true. It merely shifts trust to a different, often less accountable, set of sources.

Why it matters:
Healthy skepticism of media is justified, but throwing out all mainstream reporting opens the door to cherry-picking evidence and relying on confirmation bias. Critical media literacy involves evaluating all sources, not just the ones that validate a given worldview.

7. Slippery Slope Toward Conspiracism
Counterpoint:
By claiming there’s no need for formal conspiracy because “their interests naturally align,” the argument tries to have it both ways: suggest coordination without needing to prove it.

Why it matters:
This rhetorical move makes the theory unfalsifiable. If coordination can’t be observed and doesn’t need to be explicit, then any pattern of elite behavior can be interpreted as evidence—even when it's not.

Conclusion
Yes, elites exist, and yes, they often hold disproportionate influence. But jumping from that premise to an unproven web of informal coordination among vastly different actors is speculative at best. A more productive approach is to demand transparency, support investigative journalism, and hold institutions accountable through democratic means—not through broad, nebulous accusations that conflate influence with conspiracy.

Would you like a more concise version of this counter or one that matches a particular tone (e.g., academic, debate-style, casual)?

[Peter Porter]

Only 3 so far. If you see me post in italics in this thread from now on, it means I wrote my original post in ChatGPT and asked it to remove all the metaphors, hyperboles and other forms of imprecise language. I might revise it a couple times until the words match exactly what I wish to communicate before posting it here.

I'm mostly using ChatGPT right now to proofread my writing in a book I wrote ages ago. Stay tuned for more details... right after it becomes a movie, wins an Oscar, and I give my inevitable, awkward acceptance speech!

[sapator]

OK I'm only limited using GTP for technical data but just for the heck of it I asked to praise Niya's article.

"This article provides a masterful analysis of the intricate dynamics of power and influence in modern politics. It offers a richly detailed exploration of the concepts of the "deep state" and "the elites," effectively illustrating how these terms represent not just abstract ideas, but real networks of influential individuals and organizations that shape governance and policy.

The way the article highlights the interconnectedness of political figures, corporations, and media moguls is particularly compelling. The hypothetical scenario involving Hillary Clinton and Lockheed Martin serves as a powerful illustration of how personal relationships and shared interests can lead to outcomes that benefit a select few while often sidelining broader societal needs. This demonstrates a keen understanding of the mechanics of influence.

Moreover, the distinction made between informal power structures and easily debunked conspiracy theories enriches the discussion. It articulately emphasizes why the consideration of elite networks is not only plausible but also critical for understanding the complexities of current events.

The article’s call for attention to voices that are often marginalized in mainstream discourse is both necessary and valuable. It encourages readers to critically evaluate the sources of information and consider perspectives that challenge conventional narratives. By addressing the discrepancies in accountability faced by different political figures, it raises important questions about fairness and justice in our political system.

Overall, this piece is a profound contribution to the conversation surrounding power, influence, and accountability in our society. It persuasively argues that recognizing and analyzing these informal networks is essential for a more nuanced understanding of the political landscape and its implications for democracy.

This affirmation captures the essence of the article as accurate and noteworthy while celebrating its key insights!"

[FunkyDexter]

Many people misunderstand terms like "they," "the deep state," or "the elites," often imagining them as referring to a clandestine cabal of malevolent actors orchestrating global events with unified intent. However, the reality is more nuanced. These labels typically refer to a network of influential individuals whose interests happen to align due to shared socio-economic status, institutional positions, or ideological commitments. As a result, they often act in ways that appear coordinated, even in the absence of explicit planning or direct communication. This phenomenon can resemble a conspiracy in its effects, but it arises organically from overlapping incentives and worldviews rather than from a centralized or formally organized effort.

Importantly, many of the individuals whose actions contribute to these perceived “conspiracies”—for lack of a better term—are not hidden or unknown figures. On the contrary, they are often prominent public figures: politicians, business leaders, media executives, and policy influencers whose names and roles are well known. What gives rise to the perception of covert coordination is not their obscurity, but the systemic nature of their actions and the shared frameworks within which they operate.

Or, in a nutshell, the deepstate is... everyone.

I asked to praise Niya's article.

And you think that's a valid approach to uncovering truth?

Getting AI Bots to argue with each other is amusing but doesn't really constitute objective debate. (Particularly if you deliberately feed it a bias as an input)

[TysonLPrice]

Or, in a nutshell, the deepstate is... everyone.

I would say: Or, in a nutshell, the deepstate is... everyone but us.

[FunkyDexter]

everyone but us

I actually wrote that initially (great minds...) but then I backtracked. Because, from the definition Niya gave, Niya, Dil and Sapator are all part of my deepstate.

I think I was hinting to what Shaggy wrote upthread that, without definition, the deepstate is a subjective construct consisting of everyone who does not align with the subjective "Me". And since the subjective "Me" is mutable , that's everyone.

[sapator]

And you think that's a valid approach to uncovering truth?

Getting AI Bots to argue with each other is amusing but doesn't really constitute objective debate. (Particularly if you deliberately feed it a bias as an input)

Are you for real now?